pbi_normalize_report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it moves overflowing items inside the canvas, raises too-small items, respects margins, leaves compliant items untouched, and compares audit score before/after. It does not mention dry_run behavior or reversibility, but it adds value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by three short behavioral clauses and one comparison clause. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core transformation behavior and audit comparison, and an output schema likely covers return values. However, it omits the meaning of dry_run (which defaults to true) and any prerequisites or side effects, leaving a meaningful gap for a mutating tool with sparse schema descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has two parameters (dry_run, request_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. Since dry_run defaults to true and controls whether changes are actually applied, omitting it from the description is a significant gap; the agent must infer its meaning solely from the parameter name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Normaliza la geometria de TODAS las paginas del informe', a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling pbi_normalize_page_layout by applying to all pages, and details what normalization entails (fitting into canvas, minimum size, margins).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for what the tool does and its non-destructive-to-compliant-elements behavior ('No reacomoda lo que ya cumple'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use scenarios. Since sibling pbi_normalize_page_layout exists, direct comparison would have made this a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.